Several jurors who failed to reach a decision in the trial of a man accused of killing Etan Patz in 1979 showed up on Wednesday at the defendant’s court appearance, giving dueling news conferences outside court and airing the bitter divisions that led to a hung jury.

It is rare for jurors to take such a public stand on a person’s guilt after a mistrial, even in such a highly publicized case. The decision of the seven jurors, along with two alternates, to remain involved as spectators and advocates not only reflected the passions aroused by the case against the defendant, Pedro Hernandez, but also seemed to presage how difficult it will be to find an impartial panel for the second trial.

“We are here with a simple message, that enough is enough,” Alia Dahhan, who was the forewoman, said to reporters as she stood with five jurors and two alternates before a bank of television cameras outside Part 42 in State Supreme Court in Manhattan. “Pedro Hernandez needs to pay for what he did to Etan.”

A few feet away, the lone holdout on the jury, Adam C. Sirois, was defending his position to other reporters, saying he still believed Mr. Hernandez had given a false confession under police pressure. “It seemed not genuine, to be honest,” Mr. Sirois said. He added that he felt “no ill will” toward the jurors clamoring nearby for a conviction.

A few minutes earlier, Harvey Fishbein, Mr. Hernandez’s lawyer, had complained at the hearing in court that the lead prosecutor in the first trial, Joan Illuzzi, was making it harder to pick a new jury. He told Justice Maxwell Wiley that Ms. Illuzzi, who has resigned to run for Staten Island district attorney, had given a television interview in which she declared her strong belief that Mr. Hernandez is guilty.

Ms. Illuzzi’s handling of the Patz trial has become an issue in the Staten Island race, and Mr. Fishbein predicted that her declarations to reporters about his client’s guilt, if they continue through Election Day, would poison the pool of potential jurors. “That’s unacceptable,” he said.

Justice Wiley pointed out that he had no control over Ms. Illuzzi and added that Mr. Fishbein had frequently told reporters during the trial that Mr. Hernandez was innocent. “I don’t know what the difference is between what she is saying and what you were saying throughout the trial,” he said.

Ms. Illuzzi did not respond to a request for comment.

Etan vanished on May 25, 1979, while walking from his parents’ loft in SoHo to a school bus stop two blocks away. He was 6 years old, a slight first grader with a tote bag full of toy cars. At the time, Mr. Hernandez, 54, of Maple Shade, N.J., was a clerk in a bodega next to the bus stop, at West Broadway and Prince Street.

Image

The lone holdout on the jury, Adam C. Sirois, defended his position on Wednesday.CreditRichard Drew/Associated Press

The trial turned largely on a confession Mr. Hernandez gave 33 years later to the police and repeated several times to a prosecutor. He said he lured Etan into the bodega basement with a soda and strangled him there, then left the body in a box with some trash in a subterranean passageway a block and a half away. Etan’s remains were never found, and there was no physical evidence tying Mr. Hernandez to the crime.

Mr. Fishbein argued the confessions were fictions created by a man with a low I.Q. and a personality disorder that clouds his ability to tell fact from fantasy.

But the prosecutors argued that the confessions made sense and contained details the police could not have fed Mr. Hernandez. In addition, Mr. Hernandez had made similar admissions at a prayer retreat in 1979.

Eleven jurors agreed with the prosecution. One did not. Justice Wiley declared a mistrial last month after 18 days of fruitless deliberation.

Since then, several of the jurors have vowed to continue pressing for a conviction. They laid flowers at the site of the bodega on the anniversary of Etan’s disappearance. After the court appearance on Wednesday, some embraced Etan’s father, Stanley Patz.

“We are frustrated and disheartened still,” said one juror, Jennifer O’Connor. “That’s why we are here supporting the district attorney and his team.” She added that Mr. Sirois, the holdout juror, “had the opportunity in the room to let reason win out and he didn’t let that happen.”

Others in the guilty camp accuse Mr. Sirois of ignoring the evidence against Mr. Hernandez because he wanted attention as a heroic holdout. “There is going to be a retrial because of one individual with a huge ego and a small heart,” Ms. Dahhan said.

It is a charge Mr. Sirois vehemently denies. In his view, he said, Mr. Hernandez’s confessions “seemed very rehearsed” and came after hours of unrecorded interrogation by the police.

“I made my decision based on the evidence,” he said, “and the evidence makes me feel very comfortable.”

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 21 of the New York edition with the headline: Jurors’ Rancorous Split Over Patz Mistrial Remains on Display Outside Hearing. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe